Sunday, January 25, 2015

State IQ estimates (2013)

Like presidential elections, it has become standard for updated state IQ estimates based on NAEP scores for 8th graders on math and reading tests to be offered here every four years (for estimates based on 2005 and 2009 NAEP results, please click on the corresponding links).

The scores for both tests are on a 500 point scale, with a designed standard deviation of 50. In the proceeding table, these are converted into IQ estimates with a mean of 97.4--corresponding to the national average NAEP scores of 283.62 for math and 266.02 for reading--and a standard deviation of 15. The math and reading scores are given equal weighting.

I'm operating under the presumption that the average IQ in the US is 98. The reason the IQ estimates are based on a national mean of 97.4 is to take into account private schools, whose students on average score 15 points higher on the math test and 19 points higher on the reading test, corresponding to an estimated 5.1 IQ advantage over their public school counterparts. Representing one-tenth of the school age population, this yields a national average of 98. The estimates assume that the private school advantage relative to public schools is equal across states. That is, the public school score, plus 5.1 multiplied by the percentage of a state's students enrolled in private schools, gives the state's overall estimated average IQ.

Again in the spirit of the 2004 IQ hoax, states are colored in accordance with the way their populations voted in the 2012 Presidential election. Light red (blue) indicates the margin of victory for Romney (Obama) was less than 10%; dark red (blue) indicates it was 10% or more:

1. Massachusetts102.2
2. New Jersey101.4
3. New Hampshire101.0
4. Vermont100.9
5. Minnesota100.4
6. Pennsylvania100.0
7. Maryland99.8
8. Washington99.8
9. Montana99.6
10. Connecticut99.5
11. Ohio99.5
12. Colorado99.5
13. Wisconsin99.1
14. North Dakota99.1
15. Maine99.1
16. Wyoming99.0
17. Kansas98.9
18. Idaho98.9
19. Virginia98.8
20. South Dakota98.8
21. Indiana98.8
22. Nebraska98.8
23. Iowa98.6
24. Utah98.4
25. Illinois98.3
26. Delaware98.3
27. Rhode Island98.2
28. Missouri98.2
29. Oregon98.2
30. Kentucky98.1
31. Texas98.1
32. North Carolina98.0
33. New York98.0
34. Florida97.6
35. Hawaii97.4
36. Michigan97.4
37. Tennessee97.1
38. Georgia97.1
39. Alaska96.8
40. South Carolina96.7
41. Arizona96.3
42. Arkansas96.3
43. Nevada96.3
44. California96.0
45. Oklahoma95.9
46. Louisiana95.5
47. West Virginia95.0
48. New Mexico94.7
49. Alabama94.5
50. Mississippi94.2
51. District of Columbia92.8

And a map of the same. The darker the state's shading, the higher it's estimated average IQ:

Proximity to the Canadian border continues to show salubrious effects. Cold is good for the constitution, dontcha know!

The Department of Defense entry might reasonably be colored dark red rendering it, rather than Montana, the strongest showing among solidly GOP 'states'. Red-staters' creme de la creme in governmental positions, yikes!

This is the third set of IQ estimates I've comprised based on NAEP data. The inter-year correlations are strong, .91 between 2005 and 2009, and .97 (p-value =  1.6E-30) between 2009 and 2013. One state has shifted upwards markedly, however. Maryland was 34th in 2005, 11th in 2009, and 8th this time around. As those able to feed at the public trough eat ever more gluttonously, gentrifying out NAMs and white plebes, the scholastic performance of the entire state rises. It's almost as if our political masters behave privately in a way that is diametrically opposed to the diversifying ideals they sing paeans to in public!

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Obama's half-nephew on the maternal side could look like Grant Ronnebeck

Illegal Alien With Criminal Record Kills AZ Clerk Over a Pack of Cigarettes:

The corpulent cherub had been arrested on previous occasions on his way to acquiring a felonious rap sheet. Inexplicably, he still wasn't deported.

Don't expect to hear anything about this from the Justice Department or from Barack Obama about how Grant, the clerk, could have been his son. Nope, while the evil, white-hating president uses the bully pulpit to express sympathy for the dregs of society like Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, and Michael Brown, because they're all black, he doesn't have a kind word in his lexicon for an innocent white kid whose totally avoidable death occurred due to his administration's utter dereliction of duty when it comes to enforcing the nation's immigration laws.

I've now started explicitly identifying myself as a dissident and a secessionist. I want nothing to do with the 21st century political entity referred to as the United States of America. My federal government hates me and I hate my federal government.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the numbers I'm standing next to, even if silently for now. From Ipsos-Reuters polling, the percentages of people who either "tend to support" or "strongly support" the idea of their "state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government", by age range:

18-29: 38.8%
30-39: 28.0%
40-49: 24.0%
50-59: 21.4%
60+: 15.3%

While support for secession tilts conservative, it's more of a generational thing than it is a partisan one. More young Democrats (34.0%) support secession than do older Republicans (23.9%).

Twenty years ago, no one took Scottish secession seriously. Then it almost happened. Catalonia could be next. Who thought Sudan would break up into two countries? The artificial lines on the Middle Eastern map that putatively demarcate the geographical dividing lines between titular countries have become almost meaningless in many places. There are more euroskeptics in the European Parliament now than there have been at any point since the founding of the European Union.

Consider same-sex marriage. Support for it was a distinctly minority position just ten years ago, and now most Americans support it. Things can change pretty quickly, and with each affront like this, that change gets propelled forward further.

The US is way too big, too disparate, too divided culturally, socially, religiously, politically. It's too diverse, and diverse societies never last. Never have, probably never will. The federal government, whether it be split, Republican-controlled, or Democrat-controlled, leaves hundreds of millions of people feeling unrepresented and forced to pony up for things they don't support, like wealth transfers to scofflaws and deadbeats or unending attempts to impose predetermined governmental structures on tribalistic countries that want nothing to do with what we tell them, at the barrel point of a gun, they should want.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Abortion aborts itself

The percentages of GSS respondents who say that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason she wants to, broken down by sex and also by the number of children respondents have had. The question is dichotomous, with "yes" and "no" as the only two answers permitted. For contemporary relevance, responses are from 2000 onward. To avoid racial confounding, only whites are considered. To allow for family formation to have occurred, only responses from those aged 35-50 are included. Sample sizes for each of the six categories are in the hundreds.

For men:

# of kidsEasy abort

And for women:

# of kidsEasy abort

It's not as detrimental to evolutionary fitness as homosexuality is, but a permissive attitude towards abortion isn't associated with fecundity. Shocker, I know. Hey, validating stereotypes is this place's raison d'etre, after all.

So go ahead and tell the joke about unfettered access to contraception and the legalization of same-sex marriage as a clandestine strategy for social conservatives to win the long war secure in the knowledge that, jocular though it may sound, it enjoys some empirical grounding.

GSS variables used: CHILDS(0)(1)(2-8), RACECEN1(1), SEX, ABANY

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Bread and circuses

Despite the general vernacular understanding of the rule, it is not necessary for a receiver to maintain control of the ball as he goes to the ground unless previous control was never established, control being defined by Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the official 2013 NFL rule book as follows:
"A catch is complete... if a player, who is inbounds:

a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)."
A and B were clearly met. C is the item at issue, and by its nature is almost unavoidably subjective, but it needs to be kept in mind that the parameters for overturning a call made on the field are, according to Rule 15, Section 9, Article 3, as follows:
"A decision will be reversed only when the referee has indisputable visual evidence available to him that warrants the change."
If it was plausible that Bryant was stretching for the end zone after both feet made contact with the ground, which would constitute an "act common to the game", it shouldn't be overturned.

Is there indisputable evidence that Bryant would have clearly lost his footing even if he were not stretching for the end zone? Quite possibly--heck, probably--he would have, but it's conceivable that he might not have, and that bare minimum possibility is the standard for the ruling on the field to stand.

Had the pass initially been ruled incomplete, it'd be an open-and-shut case, but the ruling on the field was a completed pass and thus should have been left to stand.

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Speak already

Commenting on a story about a minor celebrity in Scotland being investigated by police for making an uncouth joke about ebola, Dennis Mangan suspects women to be the primary moving force behind the lodging of the formalized complaint that led law enforcement to get involved:
Notably, the police acted after 12,000 people signed a petition asking them to investigate. Lots of people, mostly women I'd say, are all on board with this. The reason why I say mostly women is that a huge number seem to think it is or ought to be illegal to say anything they deem offensive.
The GSS contains several dichotomous questions about whether or not proponents of various controversial belief systems should be permitted to publicly advocate said beliefs. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. The percentages, by sex, who say that those favoring military dictatorship, white supremacism, homosexuality, atheism, and anti-Western Islamism should be allowed to speak in public. Sample sizes are in the several thousands:

% allowed to speakMilitaristSupremacistHomosexualistAtheistIslamist

Except in the rather unsurprising case of strident homosexuals, women tend to express less support for free speech than men do, although the gender gaps are pretty modest.

Conjecturing about what this suggests regarding the validity of Mangan's point, it suggests he's more likely correct than not, specifically since this particular incident involves putative racism.